The president of the International Council of Hides, Skins, and Leather Traders Association (ICHSLTA) shares her views on hides going to waste, regulatory requirements and the need for campaigns to tackle misinformation.

How many cattle hides are coming into the leather value chain each year at the moment? How does ICHSLTA keep track of the figures?

At the moment, we don’t have an exact figure for the number of hides coming into the supply chain. ICHSLTA doesn’t track it, apart from each country knowing how many hides it produces. It is something I know COTANCE and the International Council of Tanners have raised with the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) at meetings in Rome recently; there are next steps being taken through this channel to improve data collection on hide resource efficiency. Rough estimates are possible on a country-by-country basis but that it is not an exact science.. It would be interesting to know the numbers. It would definitely be useful information because often, as an industry, we will say that it’s regrettable that hides have to go to landfill. It would be good to verify the claims we make about hides going to landfill and the environmental impact of that.

Based on ICHSLTA’s analysis of the current global hide and skin market, is the situation regarding hide waste becoming better or worse? 

It’s hard to say if it is better or worse. This is a bit of a double-edged sword in my opinion. Without doubt, the industry is facing an overall reduction in demand for leather, especially in fashion and automotive. I have been having quite a few discussions about this in recent weeks. Could this be part of the normal cyclical trend we see over time? Or is it part of a more fundamental shift that has led to people dressing more casually and wearing less leather than before? On the flip side, with hide prices being so low, it has led to innovation in other areas for using the by-products, in collagen or fertiliser for agriculture or biofuel for example. This may not be amazing news for the leather industry specifically, but these are also clever ways of using the whole animal. Another complicating factor, it seems to me, is that there is obviously an increased compliance responsibility or burden or cost, however you want to say it, for traceability and sustainability. This could be a really good thing because it could help return leather to its rightful place as an integral part of the circular economy. But it could also push developers, brands and designers away from leather because strict and detailed compliance requirements could become a bit too hard to meet. This could push them towards synthetics instead.

In April, industry figures told us they were largely untroubled by the tariff announcements that were coming out because hides are a commodity that will continue to sell, if the price is right. Six months on, what is your feeling about the tariff situation and how it is affecting important ICHSLTA member countries, including Brazil and India?

Any benefits to specific markets or actors tends to be short-term owing to knock-on effects in other products or regions. The tariff disputes have destabilised the whole market, but especially the market for some key ICHSLTA member countries; there is a very obvious impact on certain countries. They might have to look for new markets, in leather or finished goods. What I think is that destabilisation is not good for anyone. You might gain in one area but lose in another. It’s not a great situation for anyone. Uncertainty is never good; it makes decision-making difficult.

We have worked out that, if you put them in the right hands, it is possible to increase the value of a hide by more than 5000%. Why are hides still going to waste?

Demand for protein, for meat, is very strong because we need to feed everyone. For this reason, there is a huge number of hides being produced and the leather industry cannot absorb them all because of the reduction in demand. There are various reasons for this, I think. There is vocal and loud misinformation about leather. People campaigning probably think they are doing the right thing, but, of course, no cows anywhere are being slaughtered for their hides. The campaign groups have a complete misunderstanding of leather’s credentials in sustainability. I’m sure they don’t really think the leather industry is still as it was many years ago, but this is the image they portray because that suits their narrative. At the same time, it’s also true that, historically, the leather industry itself has traditionally done a particularly bad job of promoting itself. Underlying all of that, it always comes down to cost. There are lots of cost pressures on manufacturers and a number of them are definitely subbing out leather in favour of synthetic alternatives to chase the margins. That’s why hides are still going to waste.

There have been suggestions for many years that one of the keys to maximising the value of hides and leather should be and could be building closer, mutually beneficial partnerships with the livestock and meat sectors. You said on being elected as ICHSLTA president that you would make constructive dialogue with these stakeholders one of your priorities. What are the reasons for putting this at the top of your agenda? What benefits have come or will come from fostering collaboration?

Tanners and leathergoods manufacturers have had to face so many pressures in recent years and have been under so much stress. The silver lining is the realisation that many of the hurdles will be insurmountable if you try to face them on your own, no matter how big a company or how big a country you are. There is a fundamental shift in the mindset. There is cross-country collaboration, and ICHSLTA is a perfect platform for that. There is also cross-industry collaboration. We saw an excellent example in 2024, when environmental impact assessment tool the Higg Materials Sustainability Index (MSI) started attributing much lower impacts to leather, thanks to lifecycle assessment data from the Leather Working Group and from Leather Naturally. And with regard to dialogue with the meat sector, we’ve had great support here in Australia, from the meat industry and from the government, as we work to put things in place for the European Union Deforestation Regulation (EUDR). The support was at a level that you wouldn’t have thought possible five or ten years ago. Working together is the way to achieve any meaningful and lasting change.

We thought, years ago, that if big players in the meat industry could be persuaded to fund a Woolmark-type campaign for hides and leather, everyone would benefit, including them (the meat companies; and to the tune of billions of dollars), because if hides were selling at good prices instead of going to waste, they would earn money from them instead of paying to dispose of them. What do you think major meat companies would say if the leather industry approached them and asked them if they would like to make $5 billion?

It’s funny because I’ve just been looking at a new Woolmark campaign against synthetics. It’s brilliant. Woolmark is such a clever organisation; wool producers pay a levy and fashion brands are fully engaged with it. Wool has a great story to tell, but so does leather. It’s not only the meat companies that would benefit. Brands would too. There are brands whose entire business is predicated on leathergoods. It’s a bit of a Catch 22 because tanners will likely say their margins are so tight and they are under so much pressure and spending so much time on compliance that it would make it difficult for them to spend any money on promotion. Now is the critical time that money needs to be spent on educating people and promoting leather. Other industries have done it; they have structured their funding approaches and had success. We have to have those campaigns because we are fighting misinformation that is very well funded and very loud. We have to match them.

Kangaroo skins are a separate subject, but it would be interesting to know if you have a view on a political figure such as Emma Comer in Queensland lending vocal support to the idea that we can and should make high- performance materials from this renewable resource. Is this a help?

What you notice is that the attacks on kangaroo leather are usually from groups that are outside Australia. These organisations are loud and well funded. It looks as though they don’t understand or don’t want to understand how the industry itself works. In Australia, although, the government has a robust management programme in place for controlling the kangaroo population. The government defending its own management programme is logical, but it also sends a strong message. Kangaroo skins and leather are a by-product of the government management programme and the meat industry. But even without a regulated, commercial leather industry to make use of the skins, the government would still have to cull kangaroos. I don’t think the activists understand that. Australia has a wild game industry council, AWGIC, which has started a good education programme on LinkedIn to explain the detail behind the government programme. And there are advocates at the highest level of government, at federal ministerial level, who publicly support the programme. Without a commercial industry operating within the structure of the management programme, biodiversity objectives, sustainable population management and animal welfare outcomes would all be compromised.

A year ago, from an Australian perspective, you were very diplomatic when you shared some thoughts about the European Union Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) and how Europe came to be in this situation. How has your opinion about this evolved since becoming ICHSLTA president?

It’s so political. I read all the updates, and the situation is still very unclear, especially after the back-flip in late October on the proposed delay that we were all expecting. The intention behind EUDR is one that everyone agrees with. No one wants their children to inherit a planet that is on the path to destruction. It was the way EUDR was formulated and the way in which leather was included that a lot of people disagree with.  It’s hard to know what is driving the decisions, but I hope we arrive at something reasonable, something that doesn’t destroy entire industries and end up with a situation that is counter-productive. If you ended up with buyers choosing to use fossil-based synthetics instead of natural materials or shifting production to areas of the world that have limited regulatory oversight, you would be in a worse situation.

ICHSLTA president, Micaela Topper.
Credit:  ICHSLTA

Share this story: